119 points

Weird, per his beloved Constitution the federal government’s duty here is to ensure unmolested travel between and amongst the states.

permalink
report
reply
61 points

Don’t worry, the supreme court will soon reinterpret it to mean something completely different.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Gotta love the Supreme Court nowadays… if you want to change the rules just cozy up to them and ask them to do it for you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Wish i could be rich enough to be a branch of govt.

We need some guys in there thatll take a bag of weed and some buttons or I’ll never get to participate in democracy

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Thomas: “The founding fathers clearly indicated that they wanted some light molestation between the states, as women were property back then. This is no different from inspecting wheat when it enters the country.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Yes. The text says one thing, but what did the founders intend? Surely not the literal words. Only Clarence and pals will know after a seance. The first part of the ritual is, of course, receiving millions of dollars from billionaires.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, the “originalist” council of clerics on the “supreme” court have special insights into such things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Yeah but not like that, that’s against the rules! \s

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

That federal response should be “go fuck yourself JD Pants.”

permalink
report
reply
13 points

“Go fuck your couch, couch fucker!” also works.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
10 points

JD moved his cum filled couch from one place to another… That definitely should be illegal

permalink
report
reply
38 points

That’s a violation of international law, specifically article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.” “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

permalink
report
reply
15 points

Conservatives want the US to be a confederation, at least when it suits them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

These extremists don’t care about international law, or established laws. Apparently the only laws they respect anymore are the one they make themselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

They do not respect those, either, those laws are for poors.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Their idea of proper “law” is a sheriff that is a Grand Kleagle and running things exactly the way the radical right wing wants Johnny Law to be running things - arresting the “wrong” people, doing everything possible to keep the wimminz in line, etc…

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The UDHR is simply a declaration, i.e. “everyone SHOULD have these and we SHOULD work towards making sure everyone have these”, but it’s not legally enforceable - it’s not a treaty or anything like that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You can still use it to hold people accountable, especially representatives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

…and even if it had any kind of teeth, the radical right wing would hate it even more. They despise everything international, especially if it implies that (their version of) the United States is not entirely perfect.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.7K

    Posts

  • 117K

    Comments